tanada vs angara digest

7/29/2019 Tanada vs Angara Digest

1/4

Tanada vs Angara, 272 SCRA 18, May 2, 1997

Facts : This is a petition seeking to nullify the

Philippine ratification of the World Trade Organization

(WTO) Agreement. Petitioners question the

concurrence of herein respondents acting in their

capacities as Senators via signing the said

agreement.

The WTO opens access to foreign markets, especially

its major trading partners, through the reduction of

tariffs on its exports, particularly agricultural and

industrial products. Thus, provides new opportunities

for the service sector cost and uncertainty associated

with exporting and more investment in the country.

These are the predicted benefits as reflected in the

agreement and as viewed by the signatory Senators,

a free market espoused by WTO.

Petitioners on the other hand viewed the WTO

agreement as one that limits, restricts and impair

Philippine economic sovereignty and legislative

power. That the Filipino First policy of the

Constitution was taken for granted as it gives foreign

trading intervention.

Issue : Whether or not there has been a grave abuse

of discretion amounting to lack or excess of

jurisdiction on the part of the Senate in giving its

concurrence of the said WTO agreement.

Held: In its Declaration of Principles and state

policies, the Constitution adopts the generally

accepted principles of international law as part of the

law of the land, and adheres to the policy of peace,

equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity ,

with all nations. By the doctrine of incorporation, thecountry is bound by generally accepted principles of

international law, which are considered automatically

part of our own laws. Pacta sunt servanda

international agreements must be performed in good

faith. A treaty is not a mere moral obligation but

creates a legally binding obligation on the parties.

Through WTO the sovereignty of the state cannot in

fact and reality be considered as absolute because it

is a regulation of commercial relations among

nations. Such as when Philippines joined the United

Nations (UN) it consented to restrict its sovereignty

right under the concept of sovereignty as

autolimitation. What Senate did was a valid exerciseof authority. As to determine whether such exercise

is wise, beneficial or viable is outside the realm of

judicial inquiry and review. The act of signing the

said agreement is not a legislative restriction as WTO

allows withdrawal of membership should this be the

political desire of a member. Also, it should not be

viewed as a limitation of economic sovereignty. WTO

remains as the only viable structure for multilateral

trading and the veritable forum for the development

of international trade law. Its alternative is isolation,

stagnation if not economic self-destruction. Thus, the

people be allowed, through their duly elected

officers, make their free choice.

Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Posted by matisa at 5:19 AM

No comments:

PROF. MERLIN M. MAGALLONA,

et.al v . HON. EDUARDO ERMITA, IN HISCAPACITY AS

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,

et.al G.R. No. 187167, 16 July 2011,

EN BANC(Carpio, J.)

The conversion of internal waters into archipelagic

waters will not risk the Philippines because an

archipelagic State has sovereign power that extendsto the waters enclosed by the archipelagic baselines,

regardless of their depth or distance from the coast.

R.A. 9522 was enacted by the Congress in March

2009 to comply with the terms of the United Nations

Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III), which

the Philippines ratified on February 27, 1984. Such

compliance shortened one baseline, optimized the

location of some base points around the Philippine

archipelago and classified adjacent territories such

as the Kalayaan Island Ground (KIG) and the

Scarborough Shoal as regimes of islands whose

islands generate their own applicable maritime

zones. Petitioners, in their capacities as citizens,taxpayers or legislators assail the constitutionality

of R.A. 9522 with one of their arguments contending

that the law unconstitutionally converts internal

waters into archipelagic waters, thus subjecting

these waters to the right of innocent and sea lanes

passage under UNCLOS III, including over flight.

Petitioners have contended that these passage rights

will violate the Constitution as it shall expose

Philippine internal waters to nuclear and maritime

pollution hazard.

ISSUE:

Whether or not R.A. 9522 is unconstitutional for

converting internal waters into archipelagic waters

HELD:

Petition

DISMISSED.

The Court finds R.A. 9522 constitutional and is

consistent with the Philippines national interest.
http://www.blogger.com/profile/15797670286427560393http://pil-matisa.blogspot.com/2008/06/tanada-vs-angara-272-scra-18-may-2-1997.htmlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15797670286427560393http://pil-matisa.blogspot.com/2008/06/tanada-vs-angara-272-scra-18-may-2-1997.html


2/4

Aside from being a vital step in safeguarding the

countrys maritime zones, the law also allows an

internationally-recognized delimitation of the breadth

of the Philippines maritime zones and continental

shelf. The Court also finds that the conversion of

internal waters into archipelagic waters will not risk

the Philippines as affirmed in the Article 49 of the

UNCLOS III, an archipelagic State has sovereignpower that extends to the waters enclosed by the

archipelagic baselines, regardless of their depth or

distance from the coast. It is further stated that the

regime of archipelagic sealanes passage will not

affect the status of its archipelagic waters or the

exercise of sovereignty over waters and air space,

bed and subsoil and the resources therein

MEJOFF VS. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS 90 PHIL 70

BORIS MEJOFF, petitioner, vs. THE DIRECTOR OF

PRISONS, respondent.

1951 September 26

FACTS

This is a second petition for habeas corpus by Boris

Mejoff, the first having been denied in a decision of

this Court of July 30, 1949.

"The petitioner Boris Mejoff is an alien of Russian

descent who was brought to this country fromShanghai as a secret operative by the Japanese

forces during the latter's regime in these Islands.

Upon liberation he was arrested as a Japanese spy,

by U. S. Army Counter Intelligence Corps.

Thereafter the People's Court ordered his release.

But the Deportation Board taking his case up, found

that having no travel documents Mejoff was illegally

in this country, and consequently referred the matter

to the immigration authorities.

After the corresponding investigation, the Board of

Commissioners of Immigration on April 5, 1948,

declared that Mejoff had entered the Philippines

illegally in 1944, without inspection and admission bythe immigration officials at a designation port of

entry and, therefore, it ordered that he be deported

on the first available transportation to Russia.

The petitioner was then under custody, he having

been arrested on March 18, 1948.

In October 1948 after repeated failures to ship this

deportee abroad, the authorities removed him to

Bilibid Prison at Muntinglupa where he has been

confined up to the present time, inasmuch as the

Commissioner of Immigration believes it is for the

best interests of the country to keep him under

detention while arrangements for his departure are

being made."

Over two years having elapsed since the decision

aforesaid was promulgated, the Government has not

found ways and means of removing the petitioner

out of the country, and none are in sight, although, it

should be said in justice to the deportation

authorities, it was through no fault of theirs that no

ship or country would take the petitioner.

RULING

The protection against deprivation of liberty without

due process of law and except for crimes committed

against the laws of the land is not limited to

Philippine citizens but extends to all residents,

except enemy aliens, regardless of nationality.

Moreover, by its Constitution (Art. II, Sec. 3) the

Philippines "adopts the generally accepted principles

of international law as part of the law of Nation." And

in a resolution entitled "Universal Declaration Of

Human Rights" and approved by the General

Assembly of the United Nations of which the

Philippines is a member, at its plenary meeting on

December 10, 1948, the right to life and liberty and

all other fundamental rights as applied to all human

beings were proclaimed.

It was there resolved that "All human beings are born

free and equal in degree and rights" (Art. 1); that

"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedom set

forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any

kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion,

political or other opinion, nationality or social origin,

property, birth, or other status" (Art. 2); that "Every

one has the right to an effective remedy by the

competent national tribunals for acts violating the

fundamental rights granted him by the Constitution

or by law" (Art. 8); that "No one shall be subjected to

arbitrary arrest, detention or exile" (Art. 9 ); etc.

Premises considered, the writ will issue commanding

the respondents to release the petitioner from

custody upon these terms: The petitioner shall be

placed under the surveillance of the immigration

authorities or their agents in such form and manner

as may be deemed adequate to insure that he keep

peace and be available when the Government is

ready to deport him. The surveillance shall be

reasonable and the question of reasonableness shall


3/4

be submitted to this Court or to the Court of First

Instance of Manila for decision in case of abuse.

No costs will be charged

Mejoff vs Director of Prisons 90 Phil 70

Facts

Boris Mejoff, a Russian, was captured as a Japanese

spy by the US Army Counter Intelligence Corps on

March 18, 1948. He was turned over to the Phil

Commonwealth Government for appropriate

disposition. His case was decided on by the Board of

Commissioners of Immigration who declared him as

an illegal alien. The Board ordered his immediate

deportation. In the meantime, we was placed in

prison awaiting the ship that will take him back home

to Russia. Two Russian boats have been requested to

bring him back to Russia but the masters refused as

they had no authority to do so. Two years passed andMejoff is still under detention awaiting the ship that

will take him home.

This case is a petition for habeas corpus. However,

the respondent held that the Mejoff should stay in

temporary detention as it is a necessary step in the

process of exclusion or expulsion of undesirable

aliens. It further states that is has the right to do so

for a reasonable length of time.

Issue

Whether or not Mejoff should be released from prison

awaiting his deportation.

Ruling

The Supreme Court decided that Mejoff be released

from custody but be placed under reasonable

surveillance of the immigration authorities to insure

that he keep peace and be available when the

Government is ready to deport him. In the doctrine of

incorporation, the Philippines in its constitution adops

the generally accepted principles of international law

as part of the law of Nations. Also, the Philippines has

joined the United Nations in its Resolution entitled

Universal Declaration of Human Rights in

proclaiming that life and liberty and all other

fundamental rights shall be applied to all humanbeings. The contention that he remains a threat of to

the security of the country is unfounded as Japan and

the US or the Phils are no longer at war.

MEJOFF vs DIRECTOR OF PRISONS90 PHIL 70

1.MEJOFF vs DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

90 PHIL 70

FACTS: This was an original action in the Supreme

Court for habeas corpus. The petitioner was a

Russian national who was brought into the country as

a secret operative of the Japanese forces. Upon

liberation, he was arrested as a Japanese spy by the

U.S. Army. Thereafter, the people's court ordered his

release. But the Board of Commissioners of

Immigration declared that he had entered thecountry illegally and ordered deportation.

ISSUE: Whether the petitioner being a stateless

person has the right to life and liberty being provided

in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

HELD: YES, The protection against deprivation of

liberty without due process of law and except for

crimes committed against the laws of the land is not

limited to Philippine citizens but extends to all

residents, except enemy aliens, regardless of

nationality. This is being provided in "Universal

Declaration of Human Rights" approved by the

General Assembly of the United Nations which the

Philippine is a member. The petitioner's entry into

the Philippines was not unlawful; he was brought by

the armed and belligerent forces of a de facto

government whose decrees were law during the

occupation. The theory on which the court is given

the power to act is that the wrant for his deportation,

which was not executed, is functus officio and the

alien is being held without anny law.

Petition is GRANTED

Kuroda vs Jalandoni 83 Phil 171

Facts

Shinegori Kuroda, a former Lieutenant-General of the

Japanese Imperial Army and Commanding General of

the Japanese Imperial Forces in the Philippines was

charged before the Philippine Military Commission for

war crimes. As he was the commanding general

during such period of war, he was tried for failure to

discharge his duties and permitting the brutal

atrocities and other high crimes committed by his

men against noncombatant civilians and prisoners of

the Japanese forces, in violation of of the laws and

customs of war.

Kuroda, in his petition, argues that the Military

Commission is not a valid court because the law thatcreated it, Executive Order No. 68, is

unconstitutional. He further contends that using as

basis the Hague Conventions Rules and Regulations

covering Land Warfare for the war crime committed

cannot stand ground as the Philippines was not a

signatory of such rules in such convention.

Furthermore, he alleges that the United States is not

a party of interest in the case and that the two US

prosecutors cannot practice law in the Philippines.


4/4

Issue

1.Whether or not Executive Order No. 68 is

constitutional

2.Whether or not the US is a party of interest to this

case

RulingThe Supreme Court ruled that Executive Order No.

68, creating the National War Crimes Office and

prescribing rules on the trial of accused war

criminals, is constitutional as it is aligned with Sec

3,Article 2 of the Constitution which states that The

Philippines renounces war as an instrument of

national policy and adopts the generally accepted

principles of international law as part of the law of

the nation. The generally accepted principles of

international law includes those formed during the

Hague Convention, the Geneva Convention and other

international jurisprudence established by United

Nations. These include the principle that all persons,

military or civilian, who have been guilty of planning,

preparing or waging a war of aggression and of the

commission of crimes and offenses in violation of

laws and customs of war, are to be held accountable.

In the doctrine of incorporation, the Philippines

abides by these principles and therefore has a right

to try persons that commit such crimes and most

especially when it is committed againsts its citizens.

It abides with it even if it was not a signatory to

these conventions by the mere incorporation of such

principles in the constitution.

The United States is a party of interest because the

country and its people have been equally, if not more

greatly, aggrieved by the crimes with which the

petitioner is charged for. By virtue of Executive Order

No. 68, the Military Commission is a special militarytribunal and that the rules as to parties and

representation are not governed by the rules of court

but by the very provisions of this special law.

KURODA vs JALANDONI

KURODA vs JALANDONI

83 PHIL 171

FACTS: Shigenori Kuroda, formerly a Lieutenant-

General of the Japanese Imperial Army and

Commanding General of the Japanese ImperialForces in The Philippines during a period covering

19433 and 19444 who is now charged before a

military Commission convened by the Chief of Staff

of the Armed forces of the Philippines with having

unlawfully disregarded and failed "to discharge his

duties as such command, permitting them to commit

brutal atrocities and other high crimes against non

combatant civilians and prisoners of the Imperial

Japanese Forces in violation of the laws and customs

of war" comes before this Court seeking to establish

the illegality of Executive Order No. 68 of the

President of the Philippines: to enjoin and prohibit

respondents Melville S. Hussey and Robert Port from

participating in the prosecution of petitioner's case

before the Military Commission and to permanently

prohibit respondents from proceeding with the case

of petitioners.

ISSUE: Whether Military Commission has jurisdiction

to try petitioner for acts committed in violation of the

Hague Convention and the Geneva Convention even

the Philippine was not a signatory to such treaty?

HELD: Military Commission has jurisdiction to try for

the acts committed. It cannot be denied that the

rules and regulations of the two convention form part

of and are wholly based on the generally accepted

principles of international law. These rules and

principles were accepted by the two belligerent

nations, United States and Japan, who were

signatories of two conventions. Such rules and

principles therefore, form part of the law of our

nation even the Philippine was not a signatory to the

conventions embodying them, for our Constitution

has been deliberately general and extensive in its

scope and is not confined to the recognition of rules

and principles of international law as contained in

treaties to which our government may have been or

shall be a signatory.

tanada vs angara digest

Documents